International Route Development

[WorldTraveler]

DL announced its flights as part of its plan to gain access to and use the gates.

DL perceived it as a "route case" when the DOT basically made it clear that it didn't matter what DL was offering in terms of routes because DL is a legacy airline which the DOT sees as price gouging, market monopolizing airline.

of course the irony is that WN will do both of those things at DAL because of their mass - but the DOT or the people who made the decision won't ever admit that no type of carrier is exempt from that type of carrier if they have the means to do so.

None of that happens on US int'l routes because the US has so many int'l routes and there isn't an int'l market from the US that I can think of that one carrier dominates to the exclusion of others or where one carrier has a major economic advantage.

The ME3 is a threat to US carriers because they have an enormous economic advantage via their government's subsidies.

 

[eolesen]

I don't disagree that EK are engaging in a certain degree of predatory capacity. Can't say that I'm convinced TK, QR and EY are engaged to that same degree, though.
 

As for Delta announcing flights at DAL, of course they did. Its pretty standard for that to happen. Example, AA announced DFW-HKG/PEK/PVG and put them on sale *subject to government approval*. US during slot swap 1 announced every route they would fly from DCA *subject to government approval* etc. etc. etc.

Sure, except that nowhere on DL's website was "Subject to Approval" notated. I've got other screen grabs if you really need convincing, but here's one just because...

The point; even though EK is announcing service, whether or not it can keep it is another issue altogether. The only recourse for the US reining in EK would be to cause the US to lose its rights to the UAE. Currently, there are only two flights a day to DXB (one each on DL and UA) and none to DOH or AUH. Neither AC or AA operate into DXB.

That's a corner EK probably can afford to get backed into.

 

[WorldTraveler]

And you still can't accept that DL was trying to obtain access to DAL's 2 new gates. Despite all of the gnashing of teeth about what DL did with loading schedules to cities besides ATL that DL never flew, there wasn't even a hint of a suggestion by authorities that what DL did was illegal or that there would be any action taken against DL.


no, losing access to the UAE is not the only solution for the current situation.

DL and UA EACH operate one flight to DXB precisely because that is the size of the local market that is left for US carriers.

There are dozens of flights with many times more seats operated by the ME3 to the US. the supply far exceeds demand at normal fares.

The solution is to force the ME3's governments to abide by the same regulations that other developed countries do in Open Skies agreements not just with the US but also in other markets.

The ME3 decided they would take a piece of land that has little potential for much besides oil production and turn into a transportation crossroads. They have tried to confuse those in the US and EU over the issue by threatening to not order aircraft from Airbus or Boeing if they didn't get their way to trash their markets.

THERE ARE NO OTHER PLACES TO ORDER LARGE AIRCRAFT. IF the US and EU both say that they will not trade their airline industry for aircraft, then the ME3's strategy will fall apart. They have no choice but to order enough aircraft to serve a non-subsidized airline industry.

Airbus and Boeing are realizing that there is no gain if huge numbers of other airlines around the world quit taking delivery of aircraft because their finances have deteriorated so badly that they can't afford new aircraft.

When LH is putting 20 year old aircraft into markets to compete against the ME3, then A snd B lose. When AF/KL says they cannot afford to take delivery of new aircraft in part because AF/KL can't compete against intra-European and longhaul competitors, A and B lose.

to try to pretend otherwise is foolishness.

The reason why the ME3 are a threat to US carriers now is because they could easily start flying TATL or TPAC routes which are huge parts of the US carriers' networks.

and let's face it that the US carriers' partner networks fall apart pretty quickly if they have weak or ineffective European partners who can't help distribute traffic on their home continents.

I would strongly doubt that this phase of accusations against the ME3 will pass without changes not only to reporting requirements but also among what is considered the maximum amount that governments can invest in airline operations - with the likely result that the ME3's power and growth will be slowed down dramatically.

The end result hopefully will be that US airlines might once again be in a position to start growing their networks again where they have been unable to do so because of huge amounts of capacity from the ME3.

 

[FWAAA]

As for Delta announcing flights at DAL, of course they did. Its pretty standard for that to happen. Example, AA announced DFW-HKG/PEK/PVG and put them on sale *subject to government approval*. US during slot swap 1 announced every route they would fly from DCA *subject to government approval* etc. etc. etc.

Uhh, no, that's not what happened.

AA announced on October 16, 2013, its intention to apply for and fly DFW-HKG/PVG:

http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/american-airlines-responds-to-customer-demand-with-new-service-from-dallasfort-worth-to-hong-kong-and-shanghai

Once AA had approval from the DOT, AA loaded these flights into the GDS and put them on sale on December 15, 2013:

http://airlineroute.net/2013/12/16/aa-dfwhkg-jun14/

While the press releases always say "subject to government approval," even after approval has been obtained, AA did not sell tickets for these flights until approval was in the bag.

Delta, on the other hand, loaded flight schedules and sold tickets for flights when it had no leases in place for gates at that airport. It was a gutsy move intended to help it win a contest that the Dallas City Council thought it could hold. Turns out that the DOJ held all the cards and, as WT pointed out, the DOJ was not entertaining any applicants for the AA gates from the pool of legacy carriers like Delta. So there's Delta, selling tickets for flights that it could not operate unless it held sufficient gate space, and the G was not having any of that.

I'm not saying that DL did anything illegal or wrong or untoward in its behaviour. I'm just pointing out that AA did not sell tickets to HKG or PVG from DFW until it had airplanes, gates, and government approval lined up. DL had planes but it had no space at DAL for its huge schedule.

Don't make things up and post them as fact. WT does that routinely, and it's annoying. Persuade with facts, not stuff that's made up.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It is baffling that some continue to confuse domestic and int'l flight requirements.

there is absolutely no rule that requires a US carrier to get permission to sell domestic flights. The market is completely deregulated.

US carriers are REQUIRED to obtain US government approval in order to sell US international flights. IIRC, they can begin selling before foreign government approvals are obtained. I do not where AA was in the approval process but AA did begin selling ORD-China flights, IIRC, before it obtained foreign gov't approval and ended up cancelling a couple weeks of flights because the Chinese would not give AA the slots it had sold.

DL began to sell its new LAX-PVG route after US gov't approval was obtained but before Chinese gov't approval was finalized and DL had to pull sales for a week but still months before actual launch.

There are no rules against selling domestic flights before all of the details have been finalized, even at DAL where gates were limited; there are rules about selling int'l flights before appropriate approvals have been obtained.

 

[topDawg]

I don't disagree that EK are engaging in a certain degree of predatory capacity. Can't say that I'm convinced TK, QR and EY are engaged to that same degree, though.
 

Sure, except that nowhere on DL's website was "Subject to Approval" notated. I've got other screen grabs if you really need convincing, but here's one just because...

The point; even though EK is announcing service, whether or not it can keep it is another issue altogether. The only recourse for the US reining in EK would be to cause the US to lose its rights to the UAE. Currently, there are only two flights a day to DXB (one each on DL and UA) and none to DOH or AUH. Neither AC or AA operate into DXB.

That's a corner EK probably can afford to get backed into.

You didn't go far enough. When I looked at it I got to the pay screen and it said subject to approval. 

 

[eolesen]

If you say so. I would have expected more transparency, given that the current disclosure rules for codeshare and all-in fares that went into effect back in 2012 require those to be on the shopping page screenshots I saved.

Since "subject to getting appropriate gate space from someone else" really isn't a DOT mandated disclosure, I guess they could still bury it deeper into the site. Really not all that important at this point.

 

[WorldTraveler]

What you can't accept is that DL played by the rules and won. If the DOT sees a problem with carriers selling seats they never flew, then they will act just as they did with the HND access issue. given that all kinds of carriers publish schedules that they never fly, there will be enormous backlash to restricting the sale of schedules that don't become reality.


Until then, they cannot penalize DL for acting on what was allowed by the rules

specific to the actual topic, DL is adding another codeshare partner in China which will give DL an average of 50 flights per day with its code on it from EACH OF PEK and PVG, far above what any other US airline codeshares on.


DELTA on Monday 30MAR15 expanded its codeshare coverage in China, as it launched codeshare partnership with China Eastern’s subsidiary Shanghai Airlines. Codeshare partnership covers flights via Shanghai Pu Dong. DELTA also codeshares with China Eastern and China Southern on Domestic China flights.


http://airlineroute.net/2015/04/01/dlfm-codeshare-s15/

 

[topDawg]

If you say so. I would have expected more transparency, given that the current disclosure rules for codeshare and all-in fares that went into effect back in 2012 require those to be on the shopping page screenshots I saved.

Since "subject to getting appropriate gate space from someone else" really isn't a DOT mandated disclosure, I guess they could still bury it deeper into the site. Really not all that important at this point.

Pretty sure this is exactly why. 

 

[eolesen]

Meanwhile, seeing that LAX is such an important hub for DL, China Airlines is dropping 11 LAX originating DL metal routes from the partnership:

China Airlines / DELTA Revises Codeshare Coverage in S15
Posted: 31 Mar 2015 01:20 AM PDT
Update at 0820GMT 31MAR15

China Airlines in Summer 2015 season has downsized its codeshare partnership with DELTA, as it reduces number of codeshare routes from 18 to 3. The revision of codeshare service went into effect on Sunday 29MAR15. There are no changes to number of routes where DELTA displays DL code on China Airlines’ operating service.

Note the following information is based on OAG Schedules Analyser for the week of 29MAR15, China Airlines’ published timetable, as well as GDS listing.

China Airlines operated by DELTA (effective 29MAR15)
Los Angeles – Guatemala City
Los Angeles – Phoenix
Los Angeles – San Diego

Following codeshare routes ended on 28MAR15.
Los Angeles – Boston
Los Angeles – Cincinnati
Los Angeles – Columbus OH
Los Angeles – Honolulu
Los Angeles – Las Vegas
Los Angeles – New Orleans
Los Angeles – Orlando
Los Angeles – Raleigh
Los Angeles – Sacramento
Los Angeles – San Diego
Los Angeles – Tampa
Salt Lake City – Houston
Salt Lake City – Los Angeles
San Francisco – Cincinnati
San Francisco – Honolulu

Due to the dynamics of codeshare partnership, further changes remain highly possible.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and if you look at the history of DL's codeshare relationship with CI as well as other carriers, there have been many cases of changes in the amount of codeshare flights.

I don't know the specifics here, but DL sets block seat prices which CI can agree to or not.

Just like with KE, CI and DL are not JV partners which means that CI pays block seat prices and uses mapped inventory.

Any Skyteam JV partner can decide that it is worth their while to upgrade to a JV relationship (assuming it is permissible in their country or by DOT regulations).

 

[topDawg]

Meanwhile, seeing that LAX is such an important hub for DL, China Airlines is dropping 11 LAX originating DL metal routes from the partnership:
 

yeah cause that is the kind of stuff that makes a hub 

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is precisely because DL can get more money flying the routes on its own that they don't need to sell seats to CI at the same price - and the cost of maintaining those codeshares is not worth it.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

it is precisely because DL can get more money flying the routes on its own that they don't need to sell seats to CI at the same price - and the cost of maintaining those codeshares is not worth it.

 
Nice spin!

 

[WorldTraveler]

you mean, "thanks for pointing out the reality which I can't deny"

DL will allows its partners to put its code anywhere they can make money doing so.